Logical Arguments & Fallacies

jayman · 20th February 2011, 05:22 PM

I want to give a talk on logical fallacies and how to construct sound logical arguments.

Can anyone recommend any books and/or websites about logical fallacies and how to make logically sound arguments?

Fnord · 20th February 2011, 05:44 PM

Google is Your Friend:

Basic Reasoning Skills

Fallacies, Arguments List

Fallacies, Common

Even Wikipedia Likes You:

Fallacies, Wikipedia List

Enjoy!

JoeTheJuggler · 20th February 2011, 05:47 PM

I especially like the taxonomy of fallacies on this site:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Showing how certain named fallacies are subsets of other named fallacies is useful. (For example, the ad hominem fallacy is a type of red-herring or irrelevant fallacy.)

ETA: Plus you can see the plain distinction between the two broadest categories: formal vs. informal fallacies.

Roxane · 20th February 2011, 05:47 PM

I like SGU's list.

AdMan · 20th February 2011, 06:05 PM

Brian Dunning also has several good Skeptoid episodes on the subject:

http://skeptoid.com/episode_guide.php?cat=12

rjh01 · 20th February 2011, 10:11 PM

This is slightly off topic, but is related to arguments and debates.

http://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-...ts-and-Debates

jayman · 21st February 2011, 08:06 AM

Thank you so much for the suggestions, so far!

Does anyone have any book recommendations on how to construct logical arguments?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 22nd February 2011, 03:40 PM

Here's my lesson on how to construct logical arguments:

Since you undoubtedly will not be able to agree on the premises, there is no reason to continue on with the argument construction.

~~ Paul

blutoski · 23rd February 2011, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Josh111485

Thank you so much for the suggestions, so far!

Does anyone have any book recommendations on how to construct logical arguments?

I don't think there's any books specifically dedicated to argument composition from that perspective, but there are textbooks on critical thinking available, of which there are usually chapters on argument structure. I've had good luck with "Critical Thinking" by Moore.

There are some lecture materials available at [the Critical Thinking Consortium]

Having done lectures on critical thinking in the past, I would recommend a more specific subtopic if you want any results. An hour won't cover even one of the more difficult fallacies, much lest an the current inventory of approximately 300. Much less argument structures, of which there are about a dozen.

Critical thinking and argument structure is a whole field of study. Just as an analogy, I'm not sure what to suggest if somebody said they had an hour onstage so wanted to teach 'biology'. It's a pretty big topic that really won't be conveyed well in a single lecture. Argument composition has the same challenge.

I built an online [critical thinking tutorial] in the early '90s that has some sample exercises, which is how comprehension of the material happens, unfortunately.

blutoski · 23rd February 2011, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Here's my lesson on how to construct logical arguments:

Since you undoubtedly will not be able to agree on the premises, there is no reason to continue on with the argument construction.

~~ Paul

I find value in locating those premises though.

I agree with Dr. Novella's idea that arguments can still be productive if people ultimately narrow down their disagreement to something specific.

RayG · 23rd February 2011, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Josh111485

Can anyone recommend any books and/or websites about logical fallacies and how to make logically sound arguments?

I like this one,

and this one,

and this one too.

RayG

jayman · 24th February 2011, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

Having done lectures on critical thinking in the past, I would recommend a more specific subtopic if you want any results. An hour won't cover even one of the more difficult fallacies, much lest an the current inventory of approximately 300. Much less argument structures, of which there are about a dozen.

By "specific subtopic" you mean a specific logical fallacy?

You're saying there's an inventory of approximately 300 logical fallacies?

blutoski · 25th February 2011, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Josh111485

By "specific subtopic" you mean a specific logical fallacy?

You're saying there's an inventory of approximately 300 logical fallacies?

Yes, depending on what list you consult, as many as 300 have been named.

This is a matter of lumpers vs splitters. Fallacies are hierarchical, so some people will argue that this fallacy is just a specific instance of its parent type, and therefore doesn't merit a distinctive name.

Just as an example: 'poisoning the well' is a type of 'ad hominem' which is a type of 'red herring'. Some people argue that because it's really just a type of red herring, they don't support labelling the fallacy as 'poisoning the well' when conducting argument analysis.

blutoski · 25th February 2011, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Josh111485

By "specific subtopic" you mean a specific logical fallacy?

Possibly - I spend about 5 hours just on fallacious vs legitemate arguments from authority and its relation to science as a field of knowledge and naturalistic epistemology. I think that's the most complicated fallacy to explain, though. But it's certainly central to skepticism.

Another example of a subtopic that would take about an hour to teach would be premise identification, particularly an exercise in locating hidden premises.

If you have shorter time, I would discuss the principle of charity, or even go into 'what is the purpose of constructing an argument?' - there are three major goals, and choosing the right one will strongly influence how an argument is composed. (sophistry, pursuit of an approximation of truth, motivating audience to take action)

jayman · 25th February 2011, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

Much less argument structures, of which there are about a dozen.

What are some of these argument structures? Are some structures more complicated than others?

Iconoclast08 · 25th February 2011, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I especially like the taxonomy of fallacies on this site:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Showing how certain named fallacies are subsets of other named fallacies is useful. (For example, the ad hominem fallacy is a type of red-herring or irrelevant fallacy.)

ETA: Plus you can see the plain distinction between the two broadest categories: formal vs. informal fallacies.

What a great link! Thanks for sharing.

AdMan · 25th February 2011, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast08

What a great link! Thanks for sharing.

Agree. Haven't had much time to look through it but that looks like a great link.

JoeTheJuggler · 25th February 2011, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Josh111485

By "specific subtopic" you mean a specific logical fallacy?

You're saying there's an inventory of approximately 300 logical fallacies?

I would again recommend approaching it from the taxonomy of fallacies organization I mentioned earlier. Then there aren't 300 totally unrelated fallacies, but maybe 20 or so categories (in the two broadest categories of formal or informal logical fallacies).

Similarly, a zoologist or botanist or entomologist can give a summary of a family which might have hundreds of thousands of species. The family can be described in a single lecture, with a few examples from the most important genera.

Irish Murdoch · 27th February 2011, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Josh111485

Thank you so much for the suggestions, so far!

Does anyone have any book recommendations on how to construct logical arguments?

Anne Thomson, Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction, 3rd Edition (London: Routledge, 2009).

blutoski · 28th February 2011, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Josh111485

What are some of these argument structures? Are some structures more complicated than others?

Yes, some are more complex than others.

Examples of very simple argument structures would be simple syllogisms.

Here's a list of two-part syllogisms on wikipedia: [Syllogism]

And syllogisms are the simplest argument structure of which I'm aware.

Arguments are built from modules of syllogisms, and can be inifitely large.

For example, a more complex structure composed of multiple syllogisms is 'scientific argument' and its cousin 'argument from authority'.

As it happens, there's no page on Wikipedia to list argument forms. There is an introductory page: [Argument Form]

My observation is that wikipedia is extremely weak on critical thinking concepts.

Delvo · 1st March 2011, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

in the two broadest categories of formal or informal logical fallacies

What are those?

20th February 2011, 05:22 PM	#1
jayman Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 200	Logical Arguments & Fallacies I want to give a talk on logical fallacies and how to construct sound logical arguments. Can anyone recommend any books and/or websites about logical fallacies and how to make logically sound arguments?
	__________________ The Cleveland Skeptics What's the Harm?

20th February 2011, 05:44 PM	#2
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Google is Your Friend: Basic Reasoning Skills Fallacies, Arguments List Fallacies, Common Even Wikipedia Likes You: Fallacies, Wikipedia List Enjoy!
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

20th February 2011, 05:47 PM	#3
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,728	I especially like the taxonomy of fallacies on this site: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html Showing how certain named fallacies are subsets of other named fallacies is useful. (For example, the ad hominem fallacy is a type of red-herring or irrelevant fallacy.) ETA: Plus you can see the plain distinction between the two broadest categories: formal vs. informal fallacies.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

20th February 2011, 05:47 PM	#4
Roxane Dearly Insane Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Tsar Chasm Posts: 2,262	I like SGU's list.
	__________________ ~Beauty is a harlot~ Hawk one - I prefer to think of myself as the ultimate proof that humans have a soul, because otherwise, people would not feel a part of it die when I'm posting. Hawk one lights up my jar of cranberry juice.

20th February 2011, 06:05 PM	#5
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,165	Brian Dunning also has several good Skeptoid episodes on the subject: http://skeptoid.com/episode_guide.php?cat=12
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,165	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

20th February 2011, 10:11 PM	#6
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,172	This is slightly off topic, but is related to arguments and debates. http://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-...ts-and-Debates

21st February 2011, 08:06 AM	#7
jayman Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 200	Any Book Recommendations? Thank you so much for the suggestions, so far! Does anyone have any book recommendations on how to construct logical arguments?
	__________________ The Cleveland Skeptics What's the Harm?

22nd February 2011, 03:40 PM	#8
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Here's my lesson on how to construct logical arguments: Since you undoubtedly will not be able to agree on the premises, there is no reason to continue on with the argument construction. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

23rd February 2011, 04:07 PM	#9
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	Originally Posted by Josh111485 Thank you so much for the suggestions, so far! Does anyone have any book recommendations on how to construct logical arguments? I don't think there's any books specifically dedicated to argument composition from that perspective, but there are textbooks on critical thinking available, of which there are usually chapters on argument structure. I've had good luck with "Critical Thinking" by Moore. There are some lecture materials available at [the Critical Thinking Consortium] Having done lectures on critical thinking in the past, I would recommend a more specific subtopic if you want any results. An hour won't cover even one of the more difficult fallacies, much lest an the current inventory of approximately 300. Much less argument structures, of which there are about a dozen. Critical thinking and argument structure is a whole field of study. Just as an analogy, I'm not sure what to suggest if somebody said they had an hour onstage so wanted to teach 'biology'. It's a pretty big topic that really won't be conveyed well in a single lecture. Argument composition has the same challenge. I built an online [critical thinking tutorial] in the early '90s that has some sample exercises, which is how comprehension of the material happens, unfortunately.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

23rd February 2011, 04:09 PM	#10
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Here's my lesson on how to construct logical arguments: Since you undoubtedly will not be able to agree on the premises, there is no reason to continue on with the argument construction. ~~ Paul I find value in locating those premises though. I agree with Dr. Novella's idea that arguments can still be productive if people ultimately narrow down their disagreement to something specific.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

23rd February 2011, 04:49 PM	#11
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by Josh111485 Can anyone recommend any books and/or websites about logical fallacies and how to make logically sound arguments? I like this one, and this one, and this one too. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

24th February 2011, 09:37 AM	#12
jayman Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 200	Originally Posted by blutoski Having done lectures on critical thinking in the past, I would recommend a more specific subtopic if you want any results. An hour won't cover even one of the more difficult fallacies, much lest an the current inventory of approximately 300. Much less argument structures, of which there are about a dozen. By "specific subtopic" you mean a specific logical fallacy? You're saying there's an inventory of approximately 300 logical fallacies?
	__________________ The Cleveland Skeptics What's the Harm?

25th February 2011, 10:15 AM	#13
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	Originally Posted by Josh111485 By "specific subtopic" you mean a specific logical fallacy? You're saying there's an inventory of approximately 300 logical fallacies? Yes, depending on what list you consult, as many as 300 have been named. This is a matter of lumpers vs splitters. Fallacies are hierarchical, so some people will argue that this fallacy is just a specific instance of its parent type, and therefore doesn't merit a distinctive name. Just as an example: 'poisoning the well' is a type of 'ad hominem' which is a type of 'red herring'. Some people argue that because it's really just a type of red herring, they don't support labelling the fallacy as 'poisoning the well' when conducting argument analysis.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

25th February 2011, 10:32 AM	#14
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	Originally Posted by Josh111485 By "specific subtopic" you mean a specific logical fallacy? Possibly - I spend about 5 hours just on fallacious vs legitemate arguments from authority and its relation to science as a field of knowledge and naturalistic epistemology. I think that's the most complicated fallacy to explain, though. But it's certainly central to skepticism. Another example of a subtopic that would take about an hour to teach would be premise identification, particularly an exercise in locating hidden premises. If you have shorter time, I would discuss the principle of charity, or even go into 'what is the purpose of constructing an argument?' - there are three major goals, and choosing the right one will strongly influence how an argument is composed. (sophistry, pursuit of an approximation of truth, motivating audience to take action)
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

25th February 2011, 05:33 PM	#15
jayman Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 200	Originally Posted by blutoski Much less argument structures, of which there are about a dozen. What are some of these argument structures? Are some structures more complicated than others?
	__________________ The Cleveland Skeptics What's the Harm?

25th February 2011, 07:11 PM	#16
Iconoclast08 Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Between two ferns. Posts: 318	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I especially like the taxonomy of fallacies on this site: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html Showing how certain named fallacies are subsets of other named fallacies is useful. (For example, the ad hominem fallacy is a type of red-herring or irrelevant fallacy.) ETA: Plus you can see the plain distinction between the two broadest categories: formal vs. informal fallacies. What a great link! Thanks for sharing.

25th February 2011, 07:58 PM	#17
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by Iconoclast08 What a great link! Thanks for sharing. Agree. Haven't had much time to look through it but that looks like a great link.
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,165	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

27th February 2011, 01:43 AM	#19
Irish Murdoch Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 373	Originally Posted by Josh111485 Thank you so much for the suggestions, so far! Does anyone have any book recommendations on how to construct logical arguments? Anne Thomson, Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction, 3rd Edition (London: Routledge, 2009).
	__________________ Most people would rather die than think. In fact they do. (Bertrand Russell)

28th February 2011, 12:18 PM	#20
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	Originally Posted by Josh111485 What are some of these argument structures? Are some structures more complicated than others? Yes, some are more complex than others. Examples of very simple argument structures would be simple syllogisms. Here's a list of two-part syllogisms on wikipedia: [Syllogism] And syllogisms are the simplest argument structure of which I'm aware. Arguments are built from modules of syllogisms, and can be inifitely large. For example, a more complex structure composed of multiple syllogisms is 'scientific argument' and its cousin 'argument from authority'. As it happens, there's no page on Wikipedia to list argument forms. There is an introductory page: [Argument Form] My observation is that wikipedia is extremely weak on critical thinking concepts.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

1st March 2011, 05:40 PM	#21
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,883	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler in the two broadest categories of formal or informal logical fallacies What are those?